MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028466615 · doi:10.3917/riges.273.0012

Gérer les soins de santé et le traitement de la maladie

2002· article· fr· W2028466615 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Pourquoi les systèmes de santé sont-ils si difficiles à gérer? Aucun pays ne semble satisfait de l’état actuel de son système; presque partout les réformes sont considérées, planifiées ou appliquées, certaines en contradiction flagrante avec d’autres. Chaque réforme prétend mieux répondre aux besoins des usagers, et la plupart sont conçues pour soumettre leurs parties constituantes à un contrôle financier. Le «monde» des services de santé connaît depuis longtemps une différenciation en quatre mondes, c’est-à-dire en quatre ensembles d’activités, quatre modes d’organisation, quatre mentalités qui fonctionnent en vase clos. Tant que ces dimensions resteront séparées, rien de fondamental ne changera. Cet article délimite ces quatre mondes, puis il examine les caractéristiques de chacun d’eux, spécialement leur différenciation, et, enfin, il considère certaines relations dynamiques que ces mondes entretiennent entre eux.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it